It's a good thing brains can't feel pain. That sounds excruciating. 

LMAO, I'm going to have to start googling all the nonsense words I make up from now on. I learned something new and awesome today! Thanks for that!

I've never heard of the "snarfel" being used to describe the first definition. I've always heard those described as a "rasberry" or, for the more rare name, a "zurburt". (unsure of the spelling on that).

I don't think the latter snarfel is possible. You'd either knee the blower in the face or else you'd have to be able to run while maintaining a 69 configuration, which sounds dangerous and difficult! But perhaps that is the solution. Only very strong men with petite lovers can successfully execute the snarfel.

Or maybe he leans forward onto the handrails so that he is running on his tip toes at an angle... but then the blower would have to assume some kind of crabwalk stance so that she didn't slide down the conveyor and bowl him over... or worse... take a bite out of .... er... crime.

I hope someone else is casually stumbling onto this chunk of text.

I don't know what it is about the snarfel! I just can't stop thinking about it!

Any-hwayz.

By which, it seems to me, you could only mean two possible things:

1)I only know his secondary, qualifying characteristics.

2) I have an understanding of what god is through knowing what god is not. (which would be false, btw)

So is Gzkenileaptik!

(I hesitate to repeat the Snarfel incident).

(That is not to suggest that I have ever successfully snarfeled).

I believe there are things we/I don't know. That doesn't make me a god believer. That just makes me honest. 

I don't believe there are things we CANNOT know, though, because it could be true that we are able to understand everything, we just haven't had (or may not ever have) enough time to do it.

Furthermore, to suggest that there are things we can't know is to suggest that human reasoning is either flawed or limited.

To suggest that it is flawed is a self-contradiction, since you couldn't have arrived at that conclusion without using the reasoning you are suggesting is flawed.

To suggest that it is limited is problematic because, in order to know how it was limited, you would first have to know what is beyond that limit. If you know what is beyond that limit, then understanding is not limited. To put it analogically, you don't know that the length of this string of typed characters is limited by the dot at the end of it unless you are able to arrive at the dot and then look beyond it.

But others do.

I'm glad you said that instead of me. Usually I end up saying that to the theist.

Although with you I can tell you are using analogies to assist understanding. I usually only end up saying that to theists who offer analogies as their entire point.

Yes you can. Light is how you are able to see. Without light, you wouldn't see anything!

To be fair, we probably don't see anything as it actually is. We are able to see objects because light reflects off of them. Our brains are able to use geometry, frequency, wavelength, and all sorts of variables to piece together an image in our minds. It is probably not what is actually in front of us, though. It is simply a model of what is in front of us.

Have ever seen one of those toys that consist of hundreds of nails hanging down through a plank of wood, and then you raise your hand up beneath it and watch the nails form the contours of your hand, or whatever else you choose to put under there?

It's kind of like that. The nails show you a hand, but it's not THE hand. Your brain shows you what is there, but it's just a model. Everything you know is a model. The only other option is to BE the real deal.

Also, just because it's a model doesn't mean it is incorrect. I think you are confusing "incorrect" with "not the real thing".

A photograph is only a model of an image, and it forms that image with light, just like your eye, but that doesn't mean the photograph is showing a lie. It just means it's not the real thing.

You may not ever understand light in that way, but because someone else does, we know that you COULD.

No one understands god in any other way except through feelings, intuitions, or faith in spite of lack of evidence. As far as we know, these are the only ways he can be "understood". I use the quotes very purposefully.

It would make more sense to me if you were saying that you simply believe in the unknown.

To make an analogy, to me it sounds the same as a person standing in the middle of a perfectly dark room and saying, "I know there is a floor in here because I am standing on it. I know that I am in here because I am me. I don't really know what else is surrounding me right now, but I am committing myself to the position that there simply must be a bidet somewhere around here. Don't ask me why."

 Of course the difference is that such a person COULD find out if there was a bidet, especially because he knows WHAT a bidet is. Such a luxury is not available with this "god" thing.

But we've already established that analogies are tricky. =)

Thanks. =)

The only way we are able to understand anything is by working backward. Understanding is not inherent. =)

The thing is that I am able to understand what I feel and why because I contemplate and reflect on it. I don't call it "god" and stop right there as I used to. The answer doesn't always come right away, but it's amazing how much you can figure out about yourself through intense scrutiny of your own feelings and actions.

I remember a time when I used to have fantasies about suicide. Mind you, I wasn't CONTEMPLATING suicide. I was not suicidal. I would simply find myself daydreaming about the idea of suicide or about my own death. I would wonder what people would say or think upon discovering my death. Who would come to my funeral? Who would be the last to find out and who would be the first?

One night it occurred to me that this was probably an unusual thing for someone to be doing. I knew I wasn't suicidal, so I wasn't especially concerned, but I wanted to figure it out. I asked myself honest questions, and I gave myself honest answers, and if I noticed myself not wanting to explore a particular topic, I saw that as a reason to turn around and explore it deliberately.

I couldn't begin to remember exactly what I conversed with myself, but I do remember the conclusion. I discovered that I felt left behind by old friends who I saw as being ahead of me in life (starting families now and the like). I felt out of contact with certain people. I felt like a memory. The casual thoughts of death, I realized, were simply an expression of my desire for everyone to remember me again, all at once.

It took me at least 15 minutes to sort this out, but I finally did. Nothing is more chilling than coming face-to-face with your unconscious self. Some people do this by free-association writing, if you've ever heard of it, but I find that doesn't work as well for me.

At any rate, I stopped having those daydreams, and I felt better, because I knew what was going on, and I knew exactly what I could do about it. 

I would rather do this kind of contemplating than contemplating what an elusive god figure would have me do.

Granted, I'm an especially introverted kind of person, so what I do doesn't reflect on all atheists. If any of them are reading this, I'm sure there are a few making this face o_O

Knowing myself is one of the most important things on earth to me. How can you say you know anything if you don't know yourself first?

(And if any trollish theists are reading, I don't mean self-worship or self-obsession, kthx).

I don't see us reaching any more common ground on this particular point, so we may just have to disagree.

I've heard your argument and you've heard mind. No common ground here either I guess. Agree to disagree.

You've apologized to me, but maybe you should apologize to you as well.

I hope that didn't sound like a put-down. For perspective, that's coming from Mr. Self-reflection.

Be snarfeled. (Just don't knock out any of her teeth.) 

I don't mind the colors as much as some. 

I am definitely dividing the world into 1 and 2, but I cannot definitely destinguish between 2 and 3 because I would have no way of knowing if there were something I definitely could not understand. As far as I can tell, the only possible position is agnosticism regarding #3.

Bullshitters. Colleges are excellent for teaching how to bullshit your way through things.

I don't know if I would go as far as to call it cowardice, because that has a pejorative ring to it. I think people generally just want to be happy, and they are afraid to find out that they're not as happy as they thought they were or were trying to be.

But as the atheists around here are constantly trying to point out to the theists: you can't answer a question or solve a problem by setting it aside.

It's sort of like when a loved one dies. Life is much better much quicker if you face it and deal with it rather than trying to keep it out of your head. That goes for anything, I'd say.

You're doing better than most theists we see. At least in this thread.

A book beneath the broken leg of the coffee table "fixes" the coffee table. For many people that's fine. It works, the coffee table is level, and they are happy. No problems.

I'd rather have a more genuine solution. 

I question my sanity daily.

I am convinced that there will always be questions to ask.

"Would you at least admit the possibility that you are Robert Porter?"

"I'll admit the possibility that I am Robert Porter if you will admit the possibility that I am from the planet K-PAX."

Sorry. I'm one of those compulsive movie quoters.

Good quote though.

That's what I was going for.

I was suggesting that this is a sort of "book beneath the table leg". Of course I realize that it probably looks more like that to me than to you.

The book works, too. =)

Careful. We do not assert that there definitely is no god. We assert that IF there is a god, then we know nothing about it to date.

I'll assume you mean what I just said. =)

My own father would probably qualify.

Some atheists argue over this question, actually. On this forum, we tend to argue the existence of god with whatever theist shows up, because the theist sees that we are atheists and that he is a theist, and so that's naturally the most common challenge to us. The line of questioning takes different paths, of course, but mostly that's what many of the threads boil down to. "Is it true?"

Your question here is more of a conduct/practice question. For most of the atheists around here, it wouldn't matter the least if someone wanted to believe in god. The reason we attack god belief in this way is simply for political reasons. Christianity in America thinks it can do anything. It can make children pray in school, it can post its 10 commandments wherever it wants, it can mention god and his works in television media, etc.  But atheists are made out to be devil-worshippers (speaking generally here) and would NEVER be able to whore out their ideas the way that christians do. We'd be accused of trying to indoctrinate (they'd probably say "corrupt&quot, while when they do it, it's just perfectly fine and dandy.

This country was founded on secularism. Not just freedom OF religion, but freedom FROM religion. That is the knife we're stabbing with, so to speak.

You can believe that your grandfather was an oak tree for all I care, but if you are exposing people to that belief while insulating them from all opposing views, that's just horseshit.

My dad can believe whatever he wants. I believe whatever I want. I'd like to argue with him about it, and I'm sure he'd like to argue with me about it, but we don't. As long as I don't step on his toes and he doesn't step on mine, who cares?

Some atheists would object to this and say that I need to say something, because we can't just stand by and ignore theists or the problem won't go away. I think that's true.

So I tend to see myself as attacking theism in the public sphere but not in the sphere of my own personal relationships. If all atheists had that view, then my dad would still have to defend himself (and me myself) without either of us having to violate our relationship.

I'll let the core members explain the details of their goals. I don't want to project my own feelings onto them or say something of their position that isn't true.

Love spicy food!

Be jubilant.  *uses the Jedi hand wave on you*

I think that most beliefs are subjective, which is why we have objective science. Science helps us get rid of our own subjectivity. It is not perfect, but the process as a whole overtime becomes very objective. Sounds to me that you used science on yourself to come up with your belief system and they just happend to correspond to the bible. I believe in a lot of things that correspond to the bible, but I don't give the bible credit.